$80,000 Awarded for Sex Discrimination. Following a hearing, an AJ found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of her sex when it failed to select her for a Postmaster position, and awarded Complainant, among other things, $80,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. On appeal, the Commission found that the AJ’s award was proper. Complainant’s testimony, as corroborated by her husband, showed that she became physically ill and suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the discrimination. She experienced various symptoms, including headaches, difficulty eating, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, the loss of enjoyment of life, sadness, and feelings of helplessness. She sought medical treatment as a result of her physical and psychological symptoms. Complainant’s psychologist testified that she diagnosed Complainant with major depression and prescribed medication for Complainant. The Commission concluded that substantial evidence supported the AJ’s finding that there was significant evidence of harm as a result of the Agency’s discrimination. The Commission noted that, contrary to the Agency’s assertion, the amount of damages does not correlate to the type of personnel action at issue, but must be determined based on the extent of the harm suffered by the particular complainant. Pendleton v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720090054 (September 21, 2011).
$50,000 Awarded for Retaliation. In a prior decision, the Commission found that Complainant’s Supervisor retaliated against him when the Supervisor threatened to examine Complainant’s assets as a preliminary step to filing a civil action against Complainant after he testified regarding allegations of sexual harassment at the Agency. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to conduct a supplemental investigation with regard to Complainant’s claim for damages. The Agency ultimately concluded that Complainant was entitled to $15,000 in non-pecuniary damages. On appeal, the Commission found that the Agency’s award was insufficient. Complainant stated that he experienced emotional and physical suffering as a result of the discrimination, and became detached from his family. Complainant’s wife stated that the tension caused by Complainant’s work situation made it unbearable to live together, and caused her to move out of the house. Complainant’s daughters stated that he was very tense, and became isolated. Several additional family members submitted affidavits confirming that after Complainant was discriminated against, he became removed from his family and stopped attending family events. The record also included statements from Complainant’s co-workers and subordinates indicating that he became less effective at work. The Commission concluded that Complainant experienced emotional mood swings, mental anguish, and damage to his professional reputation and standing as a result of the discrimination, as well as marital and familial strain. Based upon the record, the Commission awarded Complainant $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages. The Commission also ordered the Agency to compensate Complainant for leave he used as a direct result of the discrimination. Reed v. Dep’t of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 0120080520 (January 21, 2011).
$40,000 Awarded for Disability Discrimination. In a prior decision, the Commission found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of his disability when it denied his request to work at home and his requests for sick leave, and when it charged him with being Absent-Without-Leave. The Commission ordered the Agency to conduct a supplemental investigation with regard to Complainant’s claim for damages, and the Agency ultimately determined that Complainant was entitled to $40,000. Complainant appealed the Agency’s decision on damages to the Commission, and the Commission affirmed the Agency’s damage award. Complainant’s wife stated that, after the discrimination, Complainant became moody, irritable, and lethargic, and experienced sleeplessness. Complainant’s sister-in-law and a friend submitted statements noting the Complainant withdrew from family and friends. Although Complainant asserted that, after his retirement, he had to sell his house at a loss and incurred bills he was unable to pay, the Commission’s prior decision made no finding that Complainant was constructively discharged, and only awarded damages for the period of time Complainant was denied accommodation. Durr v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103491 (February 3, 2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110315 (July 22, 2011).
$25,000 Awarded for Race, National Origin, Color, and Reprisal Discrimination. The Commission previously affirmed the Agency’s finding that Complainant was discriminated against with regard to his working conditions because of his race, national origin, color, and prior EEO activity. In addition, the Commission found that Complainant was subjected to retaliatory harassment. Following a supplemental investigation, the Agency awarded Complainant pecuniary damages for moving expenses, storage, temporary living quarters and job search expenses, but made no award for non-pecuniary damages. On appeal, the Commission initially found that Complainant was not entitled to an award of pecuniary damages for lost profits on the sale of his home because while Complainant asserted that he was threatened with termination, he did not allege that he was constructively discharged. The Commission concluded, however, that Complainant was entitled to an award of $25,000 in proven non-pecuniary compensatory damages. Complainant submitted a statement indicating that he suffered emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. He noted that, because of the over two and one-half years of discrimination, he gained weight, and began to drink more. His relationships with his wife and sons deteriorated, and he felt humiliated by the racially derogatory comments of his Supervisor. Complainant further stated that he experienced tightness in his back and headaches, and had trouble sleeping. Rodriguez v. Dep’t of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120101138 (July 14, 2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110599 (January 23, 2012).
$25,000 Awarded for Race Discrimination. In a prior decision, the Commission found that Complainant was subject to race discrimination when he was not selected for a Risk Management Specialist position, and the Commission ordered the Agency, inter alia, to conduct a supplemental investigation to determine Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages. The Agency ultimately awarded Complainant $10,000. On appeal, the Commission determined that Complainant was entitled to $25,000 in non-pecuniary damages. The record contained sufficient testimony from Complainant and family members as to the effects of the discrimination. The evidence showed that Complainant suffered from emotional distress, familial strain, stress, and difficulties in preparing his church sermons. Frazier v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100064 (March 31, 2011).
$13,000 Awarded for Disability Discrimination. Following a hearing, an AJ found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of his disability with regard to his assignment. The relief awarded by the AJ included payment of $4,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, and Complainant ultimately appealed the issue of damages to the Commission. On appeal, the Commission found that the AJ’s award was inadequate. The Commission initially determined that the AJ properly denied Complainant’s request for pecuniary damages related to the sale of his mobile home and purchase of a new home, as there was no nexus between those expenses and the discrimination. The Commission found, however, that the record supported an award of $13,000 in non-pecuniary damages. Complainant testified that the discrimination caused him to feel angry, frustrated and defeated, and he went to see a counselor. Complainant’s wife stated that, after the Agency changed Complainant’s assignment, Complainant became angry, and family life was difficult. Complainant’s stepson and a co-worker confirmed these statements. Wolfe v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120081060 (October 29, 2010), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110194 (November 17, 2011).
I saw some rewards even smaller, but consider those a failure. Do you also consider less a failure?
